Lesson 1 — The Three Paths to Redemption: "Be'itah" and "Achishenah." Introduction: Why we are studying specifically this discourse. We are opening a new series — a discourse of the Mitteler Rebbe, the second Rebbe in the Chabad dynasty, delivered in the year 5585 (1825), as written at the head of the discourse: "Parshat Devarim, 5585, in Warm Bath (Warmbad)." The discourse is named after its opening words — "Do not distress Moav" — but it also has a second name, and this name teaches us what it deals with. It is written here: "And it is called by the name Be'itah Achishenah." Now stop for a moment. Why do we study such a discourse at all? This discourse is going to deal with the matter of redemption — when Mashiach comes, and how he comes. And in the depth of the matter: during the time of exile, all our service is primarily in our middot, in the emotions, in the seven middot of the heart. And when Mashiach comes — then the essence will be the intellect, the true comprehension of Godliness. So why study now about something that pertains to the future? Because precisely this study is part of the path to bring the redemption closer. When we study about the manner of the redemption, we already begin to live in the consciousness of redemption. So let us proceed, step by step.
The two verses that pull in two directions. The discourse opens with a verse from Parshat Devarim: "And the Lord said to me, do not distress Moav." God says to Moshe: do not distress — do not press, do not wage war, do not enter into battle — with Moav. And this is already puzzling. When the Jewish people left Egypt, they did in fact wage war against the nations — against Sichon, against Og, against the inhabitants of the land. They did not refrain from wars. But specifically with Moav — "do not distress." Do not touch them, go around, leave them be. We will return to this. Now the Mitteler Rebbe jumps for a moment from the verse to the Haftarah. The Haftarah of Parshat Devarim is in Yeshayahu, and there it is said: "Zion shall be redeemed with justice, and her returnees with righteousness." Zion — meaning the Jewish people — shall be redeemed from exile "with justice (mishpat)," and the "returnees" shall be redeemed "with righteousness (tzedakah)." And what do we learn from this? "This implies that Israel is not redeemed except through teshuvah and good deeds, which are called mishpat and tzedakah, as is known." That is to say: the redemption depends on our service. Through mishpat — through fulfilling the Torah; through tzedakah — through good deeds. Everything depends on us. Now notice the sense of difficulty that is being built here. On one hand there is a verse saying that the redemption depends entirely on our deeds. And on the other hand, as we will soon see, there is an opinion saying that the redemption will come regardless of our state. So on what does it depend? On us? Or not on us?
The dispute in the Gemara: Rav and Shmuel. The Mitteler Rebbe brings: "And in truth there is a dispute in the Gemara of Sanhedrin, in the chapter Chelek." In the Gemara in Sanhedrin, in the chapter Chelek — the chapter that deals entirely with these matters — there is a famous dispute. "Rav said: all the predetermined ends have passed, and the matter depends only on teshuvah and good deeds." Rav says: "all the predetermined ends have passed" — all the times set for the redemption have already passed. The time is ripe. So why has Mashiach not come? Because the matter depends only on us — "the matter depends only on teshuvah and good deeds." The problem is not in the schedule; the problem is in our state. We must rectify ourselves. "And Shmuel said: it is enough for the mourner that he stand in his mourning." Shmuel disagrees: "it is enough for the mourner that he stand in his mourning." It is enough for the mourner — let him stand in his mourning. And there are here two ways to understand who the mourner is. Some explain that the mourner is the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, as it were — "that He is the mourner" — that He, as it were, is in exile with the Jewish people, in His mourning. And when He "arises from His mourning," then Mashiach will come; and according to this the redemption does not depend on our state but on His state, as it were. And some explain — and so it is brought in the name of Rashi — that the mourner is the Jewish people: the sufferings of exile themselves are enough for us. All the pain, all the exile, all the prayers — this is already our teshuvah, and we need nothing more than this. So in short: Rav says that without teshuvah there is no redemption. Shmuel says — no, the redemption will come in any case, "it is enough for the mourner that he stand in his mourning."
The same dispute among the Tannaim: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Gemara continues: "Like the Tannaim" — this dispute of Rav and Shmuel, who are Amoraim, parallels an older dispute, of Tannaim: "Rabbi Eliezer says: if Israel does teshuvah they are redeemed, and if not they are not redeemed." Rabbi Eliezer goes according to the opinion of Rav: if Israel does teshuvah — they are redeemed, and if not — they are not redeemed. Everything depends on teshuvah. "And Rabbi Yehoshua says: the Holy One, blessed be He, establishes for them a king, etc." Rabbi Yehoshua goes according to the opinion of Shmuel: the Holy One, blessed be He, will establish for them a king — He will bring a situation, decrees, troubles — but the redemption will come even without teshuvah. And now follow the debate itself, for it is fascinating. Rabbi Eliezer brings a proof: "if Israel does teshuvah they are redeemed, as it says, 'Return, wayward sons, I will heal, etc.'" — "return" implies teshuvah, and then "I will heal." Rabbi Yehoshua answers him: "but it is already said, 'For nothing were you sold, and not with money shall you be redeemed'" — for nothing were you sold, and not with money shall you be redeemed, meaning the redemption does not depend on any compensation from your side. And so they throw verse after verse at each other, until the end: "until Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: but it is already said, 'And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, etc.' and Rabbi Eliezer was silent." Until Rabbi Yehoshua brings the last verse — from the book of Daniel — "And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river." And when Rabbi Eliezer heard this verse — "he was silent." He was silent. And in the language of the Sages, silence here is admission. Rabbi Eliezer conceded to Rabbi Yehoshua. And from here the discourse concludes: "from this it is proven that there is a predetermined end to the matter, even though Israel does not do teshuvah and good deeds" — there is a set time for the redemption that will necessarily come, even without teshuvah and good deeds.
"Wholly innocent" or "wholly guilty." The Mitteler Rebbe reinforces this from the words of Rabbi Yochanan in that same place: "that the son of David comes only in a generation that is wholly innocent... or in a generation that is wholly guilty." The son of David — Mashiach — comes either in a generation that is wholly innocent, or in a generation that is wholly guilty. "Wholly innocent" — that they do teshuvah and good deeds, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, "as it says, 'And your people are all righteous.'" "Wholly guilty" — "as it is written, 'And He saw that there was no man,'" "and as it is written, 'For My own sake I will do it'" — according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that the predetermined end of Daniel will necessarily come, come what may.
"Be'itah" and "Achishenah" — two opposites. And now we arrive at the heart of the matter, at the name of the discourse. The Mitteler Rebbe brings the words of Reish Lakish (Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi) — there in the Gemara: "for he poses a contradiction: it is written 'be'itah' and it is written 'achishenah'; if they merit... 'achishenah'... if they do not merit... 'be'itah.'" Reish Lakish "poses" — raises a contradiction. It is written in the verse (in Yeshayahu) regarding the redemption both "be'itah" and "achishenah." "Be'itah" — in its time, in its set and limited time. "Achishenah" — I will hasten it, I will speed it, I will bring it earlier. These are two opposites! How can the redemption be both at a fixed time and earlier than its time? Reish Lakish resolves: "if they merit — achishenah; if they do not merit — be'itah." If they merit, through teshuvah and good deeds — "achishenah," the redemption will come before its time. If they do not merit — "be'itah," the redemption will come at the time of the fixed end, even without teshuvah, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
The questions with which the discourse opens. Before we continue, the Mitteler Rebbe sets up a series of questions — and these are the questions that will lead the entire discourse. Let us enumerate them: First — "that Rabbi Eliezer said teshuvah specifically and did not mention good deeds." Why did Rabbi Eliezer say only "teshuvah," and not "good deeds"? There is a difference here. Teshuvah is a movement of the heart — regret, a desire to return to God, a resolve to be a better person; the person has not yet done anything. And good deeds — these are mitzvot in actual practice. Why did Rabbi Eliezer specifically take teshuvah? And moreover: behold it is said, "And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and My spirit I will give... and I will make it so that you walk in My statutes" — that the redemption comes together with the fulfillment of mitzvot in actual practice. So why only teshuvah? Second — "that Rabbi Yehoshua said that even without teshuvah they will be redeemed — how is this possible?" How can it be, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, that the Jewish people will see Mashiach come — and not do teshuvah? How is this possible at all? Third — "that it says in a generation that is wholly guilty... but surely even the sinners of Israel are full [of mitzvot]." And also on the other side: "in a generation that is wholly innocent — this is impossible, for there is no righteous person on earth." A generation that is wholly guilty, or a generation that is wholly innocent — both are puzzling. There is no generation that is wholly wicked, and there is no generation that is wholly righteous. So what is meant by these words? Fourth — "the simple meaning of be'itah achishenah, that they are two opposites." How can "be'itah" and "achishenah" coexist? Be'itah — at a limited time; achishenah — before the time. These are the key words of the entire discourse, and they contradict one another.
The three paths — the summary. And now, in brief, the Mitteler Rebbe sets up the framework — "but behold, by way of summary there are here three modes." Three paths by which the redemption can come: "One